one of my absolute favorites!

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Nothing but bland visuals. This is a tragic example of seeing dollar signs above creativity and art. There is no story at all and even the special effects seem dated. The director Ronald Emmerich is no Spielberg and one knows what he is getting into whilst watching his films but even Independence Day and Godzila were at least entertaining. Guilty pleasure even. The problem with 10,000 BC is that it takes itself way too seriously. Give this one a pass.

Quite possibly the worst and most inaccurate film I have ever been "subjected to." Right down there with some of the worst third tier horror moves and even worse when you consider it is represented at least-title -wise, as a film based loosely upon prehistoric events. I never knew that the pyramids were constructed with the aid of woolly mammoths! I can now safely divest myself of all my texts on ancient Egypt and hieroglyphics. Furthermore, the most uninstructed person is aware of the fact that, paper, gold processing and cloth production as well as written language...ships, horses??? did not exist prior to the copper age (which preceded the bronze and iron ages) around 5000 b.c. (earliest traces).We are meant to believe that the hero is a multilingual martial arts expert trained in superior cave man tactics? Save yourself the strain on your eyesight this is a box office flop. Did people actually pay to have their intelligence insulted?Then again I saw one bozo give this flop a 10/10 guess there is no counting for intelligence eh? No wonder the planet is doomed to mediocrity.

Creating a period piece based upon the Stone Age is very dubious because little is well known about prehistoric times, even with some evidence like fossils and cave men drawings. Nevertheless it can be safely stated that Roland Emmerich's "10,000 BC" fails on many levels. And the problems go way beyond the historical blunders, which include Iron Age items (swords, cages, chains), pyramids, gilded metallic pyramid top, stirrups, fabric clothing/sails with bright colors, and copper telescope. Note that the Iron Age commenced only around 1200 BC; the Copper Age began around two thousand years or so earlier. We even see a fairly accurate early modern map of the western world, including eastern South America (!). Where did these ancients get the appropriate nautical instruments for map-making? Even domesticated woolly mammoths are shown restrained by iron chain in the DESERT heat. Could not the director use Computer Generated Imagery to create mastodons instead? Hey, you can't have everything! Anyway, it is nice to learn that folks had such full and white sets of teeth then, while some women had beautiful coiffed hair and skin without scars, cuts, and scratches (even after a grueling forced march). It was interesting to learn that the Africans dined on South American chili in 10,000 BC. Beyond these fantastic facts, the movie is problematic with odd language use (unnatural English) for the era. Another annoyance is the expression "white rain" for snow. One would think that early man had used a simple word for "snow" at it is a common occurrence among mountain people. Other problems include dreadful scripting, poor pacing, ill-timed editing, and unremarkable acting. The whole muddle would have been better known as a fantasy or dream.The film, which becomes more ludicrous as it progresses, is narrated throughout by Omar Sharif. A Yagahl mountain clan of woolly mammoth hunters ekes out a meager existence (to make some sense of location, maybe they inhabit the Mt. Ararat area in eastern Turkey). But as the narrator says, before long the tribe will morph into warriors. The main character, D'Leh (Steven Strait), is looked down upon by some as his late father was unfairly perceived as a coward. The kinfolk are attacked and pillaged by prehistoric Arabic-looking slavers on horseback while two dozen or so survivors are taken prisoner (including D'Leh's love, Evolet = Camilla Belle). D'Leh and three companions quickly assemble to track the invaders. They trudge across nearly impassable mountains and thick jungles and scorching deserts. But to obtain a few slaves the ancient Arabs certainly made a cost-prohibitive and long and arduous trek (coming and going), which seems to consume about half of the feature. Along the way people encounter three types of prehistoric mammals: (1) more woolly mammoths from the Cenozoic Era's Pleistocene Period, (2) Diatrymas (large flightless birds from the Eocene), and (3) a Pleistocene saber-toothed cat (Smilodon), whose upper canines are disproportionately large and so long that the poor animal can barely extent his lower jaw beyond them! Anyway, D'Leh frees the dangerous cat, who repays him by not eating him. Because he handled himself well with the Smilodon (known as "spear-tooth" by natives), D'Leh is acknowledged as leader of the growing expedition by the prehistoric black Africans. At trek's finale D'Leh observes a super-advanced civilization (very very early Egyptian) under a man-god who commands the building of pyramids. The ruling nobles are prehistoric Asiatic Indians. Despite his unifying of North African warriors, D'Leh realizes that he is still outnumbered. If only he can free the captive slaves working the pyramids! Will the captured slaves even help them? Guess. The CGI is passable, and the sweep shots of the pyramids are well done. A positive element is that the use of gratuitous violence is somewhat controlled. Not that there is no carnage, but the camera cuts do spare us the potential grisly segments. Would including these scenes improve the film? Well, go back and read the first paragraph. On a typically more negative note, the movie does present some strange quotes. Here are just three of them:• "I understand your pain."• "Don't forget to chew."• 'Tell him I am older than I look."A defender of Director Emmerich may say that he creates movies to please crowds and make money for the major studios. While that may be, it is difficult to find those above adolescent age who would appreciate this preposterous mess. You may get through it if you do not care much about history. But it is recommended only for the incarcerated, intoxicated, deranged, and the drugged.

I've been waiting for years for an absolute epic prehistoric time thriller that shows the difficult lifestyle and has exhilarating action sequences with ancient creatures. When "10,000 B.C." was announced I was dying to finally view what I thought would match my needs. Nope! "10,000 B.C." is a loud, goofy, boring, inaccurate portrayal of one of times most interesting periods. The plot is something you'd see out of a cheesy Disney action film from Jerry Bruckeheimer and gets to the point where it feels like a spoof on the time period. Basically, a young mammoth hunter named D'Leh journeys through uncharted territory after a band of mysterious horse-riding warlords raid his village and kidnaps his lover Evolet along with many others. D'Leh is forced to lead a small group of hunters south to pursue the warlords to the end of the world to save her. The most disappointing thing about this joke of a film is how cheesy the creatures are and how little we actually see them. We see many cheesalisous creatures and only see woolly mammoths and saber-tooth tigers briefly and when we do see them we get to take in the hilarious way they look. Seriously, there are films from the 60's with better visual effects. It's very hard to see how the film takes place in 10,000 B.C., because the setting and people look like a tribe in modern day rural countries around the world. The action scenes are too kinetic, not allowing us to be driven by the scenes or rushed with excitement. They go by too quickly and there are no visual description of where the characters are so there can be no intensity. Weak editing,stereotypical production and costume design and overdone music are all on the weakness of director Roland Emmerich for allowing these weaknesses to be enforced on this film and for using terrible camera work. There's too much running through trees, ridiculous names, fake acting, cheesy effects and sound for this film to be even a little bit entertaining. "10,000 B.C." is similar to something you'd find on the history channel as a reenactment. If you've been waiting for a prehistoric blockbuster film with great visual film elements, don't be fooled like I was with this joke.